The meaning of semi-random is universal.
Semi-random simply means that it's not 100% random, but it also is not 0% random. That is the universal definition. I included a quote in my post so it was far more on the "not random" side of semi-random. When somebody says "random" and not "semi-random", they typically mean "100% random", AKA truly random, AKA not what my post said. Therefore you are indeed putting words into my mouth. Semi-random really isn't random by pure definition.
It's way past RVS and you should have known this.
It currently is, but not when I posted. There was no discussion when I posted.
I'm not putting any words into your mouth -- in fact, I'm taking words directly from your posts
RVS votes are random. That is the whole point. The reason behind it is tacked on for fun, not because it is a serious reason like yours.
As I've said for the billionth time, it was not really a serious vote. Just look at it. I quoted a post and then said "'K". I've also said a billion times that I planned on switching my vote the moment something better came up. Again, you're putting words into my mouth. I've been arguing this whole time that it was not a serious vote, and here you go again claiming that the reasoning was serious.
Furthermore, they are not 100% random. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. If you can post a reasoning behind your post other than "I used a RNG/rolled a die/etc." then your vote is only semi-random by the very definition and therefore is not truly random. If it's not 100% random then it's not truly random. The entire point of RVS is to try to get a vague read of people via the "reasoning" given by their "random" votes.
Rantai's vote was not random.
Exactly my point! If you believe my vote was not really random like you claim it to be and are attacking it solely because there was no reasoning tacked onto it, then why the hell aren't you attacking Rantai's post? He's even worse, because he didn't even include a quote or any explanation in his post. His post is more scummy than mine was from a purely objective viewpoint. He gave less reasoning and I did and while I wasn't even so much as trying to start a bandwagon - again, you can tell this just by looking at my post - Rantai was bandwagoning on another person's post.
But is he scum? No way to tell, because voting with no explanation is not a reliable read at all. Coincidentally, you are ignoring this point.